I noticed this when I first started but after several projects. it seems very counter productive to animate something and object in a straight line. thru code, instead of importing it in as animation and then just pointing it at the object its tracking.

clean up would not have to be done. it will loop back to its starting position or collision would handle it. if the object collided with another object on the way

I think he means the opposite. I could be wrong though. Like, you have a cannon and you make an animation for it to go up and down. Then you can just play a certain frame of animation rather than rotate it through code. I'm not sure myself. I guess it depends how complex the object is. If it's complex, and you can adjust the animations independently, it would probably be easier. I'm pretty sure in Unity you can set bones to track objects. I think a heavy duty coder would rather code it and a light duty coder (like myself) would rather use an animation. Math is only for when I get desperate.

partially what geon said is right. especially the the 2nd half but fireside is right I meant the opposite. it is common practice to code things that really dont have to be coded.

everything in an engine has to be coded to be controlled. but not all motion should be coded to create the motion. even something going in straight line gets coded. it strikes me as a bad practice. there is never a shortage of objects and task to be coded. in the most simple game

why create the extra work when it isnt necessary. it also limits the creativity of the game. when motion in generated thru code. the main focus is getting the code to work. so how creative can anyone afford to be when motion is generated thru code